About those “doctored” Benghazi e-mails…

posted at 5:01 pm on May 19, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I understand that the posts today have focused a lot on the political talk show circuit, and some of the material being covered has some cross-over elements to it, so I apologize for that. But this one really does deserve a hearing of its own, particularly given the new “gotcha” talking points being foisted on the Left. We’re seeing a story being pushed by administration supporters, up to and including Democratic congressmen, claiming that the Benghazi e-mails were intentionally altered by the GOP for political purposes.

When you run into these smug, told-ya-so defenders of the White House, you should calmly point them to this article from Jonathan Strong at National Review, where this claim is firmly debunked. First, he starts out with the prime example of this talking point delivered (again) from Dan Pfeiffer on this morning’s round of talk shows.

Here’s the evidence that proves the Republicans are playing politics with this: They received these emails months ago, didn’t say a word about it, didn’t complain, confirmed the CIA director . . . right after that. And then last week, a Republican source provided to Jon Karl of ABC News a doctored version of the White House email that started this entire fury. After 25,000 pieces of paper that were provided to Congress, they have to doctor an email to make political hay, you know they’re getting desperate here.

That certainly does look like a lethal blow to critics of the administration… were it only true. As Jonathan points out, the history of these events is quite different than what’s being portrayed here. He breaks it down into four key points, of which two will be of particular interest.

Nothing was “doctored.” Following the House report, Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard revealed a significant amount of new detail, followed by Jon Karl at ABC News. Both Hayes and Karl refer to summaries of the emails, meaning they presumably relied a great deal on the notes of those at the March 19 White House briefing. Karl inaccurately quotes from one email, which may have been based on faulty note-taking or some other error. While this is significant, the email in question exists and has the same core content as the email quoted by Karl — there was no wholesale fabrication.

The incorrect versions – and they were inaccurate quotes – were not generated by GOP operatives. They were extracted by ABC’s Jon Karl from notes taken by attendees at the original meeting when the White House refused to initially allow anyone to have copies which could have been used for full referencing. ABC went with the notes, being the closest thing anyone had to an official record, and the GOP worked off those notes. But even then, the “doctoring” wasn’t nearly as significant as the Democrats are making it out to be.

The differences between the two versions of the email have been overstated. At issue is the involvement of Ben Rhodes, a senior White House aide, in directing the various members of the inter-agency discussion to resolve their dispute.

Here’s the relevant part of the email as quoted by Karl:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

Here’s the relevant sentence from the real email:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

The email is important because in the preceding email back-and-forth, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had urged that references to terrorism be removed because they could be a political liability to State. Whether Rhodes said Nuland’s objections should be accommodated explicitly or by implication is a difference, but it’s a pretty small one.

Were there differences? Yes, and we should be careful in providing an accurate record of what was written, so older versions should be expunged and replaced. But does this change the essential testimony being offered from the e-mails? Not to speak of. And what differences there are were not generated by the GOP, but by quick note taking which was picked up by Jon Karl. Just keep that in mind as the White House continues to try to squirm their way out of this.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Look up the two, and their ultimate end, and you’ll get the point Bishop is making. Unfortunately the point is probably lost on HAL.

NotCoach on May 19, 2013 at 6:52 PM

No need, I already got the point Bishop was making.

I was just making a joke in the same vein, i.e the sycophantic state security apparatus never sleeps.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 19, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Hey! This must be the first Sunday show appearance for a hobbit!

PD Quig on May 19, 2013 at 9:21 PM

If my party and people who share my ideology start raving about how they are so proud to be anti America like the tea billies, I say target them too.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM

So were you in a coma from 2001-2009, or on a different planet?

Good Solid B-Plus on May 19, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Uranus.

Is HAL’s poster of the O above his bed a naked O????????

either orr on May 19, 2013 at 7:20 PM

On black velvet. I’ve heard they sell well in black gay bars up there in DC.

slickwillie2001 on May 19, 2013 at 7:33 PM

velveteen no doubt…probably too cheap for actual velvet.

workingclass artist on May 19, 2013 at 7:43 PM

My job takes me into the homes of anonymous people, and over the past 4+ years I have been amazed to see more than a few who literally had O’bama Shrines not only in their living rooms, but more frequently in their bedrooms. And these were all folks who are white.

Never saw that before, even with JFK or Reagan. To these fools, O’bama is The Pope.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

To these fools, O’bama is The Pope.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

to me he’s the Dope.
And there is no hope from that dope.

dmacleo on May 19, 2013 at 10:06 PM

The only hack here is HotAirLib.

Here’s Karl

On Sunday’s “Reliable Sources,” Howard Kurtz relayed a statement from the ABC News correspondent: “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

In twitter comments Karl regrets that be didn’t cite the source of his information as a note and not a primary source.

In other words he still stands by his reporting. Just like the linked NRO story states.

gwelf on May 19, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Dealing with the Obama administration is much like catching a 3-4 year old child in an obvious lie.

landlines on May 19, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Is HAL’s poster of the O above his bed a naked O????????

either orr on May 19, 2013 at 7:20 PM

On black velvet. I’ve heard they sell well in black gay bars up there in DC.

slickwillie2001 on May 19, 2013 at 7:33 PM

velveteen no doubt…probably too cheap for actual velvet.

workingclass artist on May 19, 2013 at 7:43 PM

My job takes me into the homes of anonymous people, and over the past 4+ years I have been amazed to see more than a few who literally had O’bama Shrines not only in their living rooms, but more frequently in their bedrooms. And these were all folks who are white.

Never saw that before, even with JFK or Reagan. To these fools, O’bama is The Pope.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Weird.

workingclass artist on May 19, 2013 at 11:34 PM

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Babe, if they put your brain on a razor blade it’d look like a BB rollin’ down a four lane highway…..

Long John Baldry, Mar Y Sol

Tenwheeler on May 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM

“WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” “IT’S NOT RELEVANT”! “I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT”. “WE ARE ALL UNFETTERED”. “IT MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG BUT IT WASN’T ILLEGAL”.
OBAMA’S LEGACY

inspectorudy on May 19, 2013 at 11:56 PM

And the big point… “Why were we working off notes?”

Because the White House didn’t allow copies of the e-mails to be distributed…

It was a limited release of some data with large restrictions… the way Obama plays everything. And a few people could see it for just a bit, but they couldn’t have a copy.

On March 19, the White House briefed the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with staff for Speaker John Boehner and minority leader Nancy Pelosi, on the emails in question. Those at the briefing were permitted to take notes but not copy the contents of the emails.

Why not let them have copies if they could see them?

Because letting them have a copy would get accurate quotes of course; and that wouldn’t be acceptable.

gekkobear on May 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM

If my party and people who share my ideology start raving about how they are so proud to be anti America like the tea billies, I say target them too.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Tea Partiers aren’t anti America. They advocate sticking with American ideas like those expressed in the Constitution. If they’re anti-American, then so was James Madison.

They probably represent a majority of the people who remember why America is different than most nations, and what gives individual Americans the ability to improve their lot in life.

A big central government can’t supply happiness or success. Heck, it can’t even supply toilet paper.

hawksruleva on May 20, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Its a good thing that I ate supper several hours ago because I would have puked my guts out after watching the horses ASS David Gregory on NBC’s hoax Sunday show. He’s another Chapstick addict. The only thing he did was chap his lips kissing Obama’s ASS for the whole show.

I know the answer to my own question but how in the hell can anybody with at least half a brain take this $h!t from Obama’s minions seriously

hamradio on May 20, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Believing this is believing Obama was actually outraged the IRS targeted those tea party fraudulent groups. A targeting strategy i am 100% for.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Because, you know, that targeting strategy could never be used against causes you favor.

ctwelve on May 20, 2013 at 2:07 AM

Believing this is believing Obama was actually outraged the IRS targeted those tea party fraudulent groups. A targeting strategy i am 100% for.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM

An idiot wrapped up in a moron !!!

hamradio on May 20, 2013 at 3:35 AM

Babe, if they put your brain on a razor blade it’d look like a BB rollin’ down a four lane highway…..

Long John Baldry, Mar Y Sol

Tenwheeler on May 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Nice!

totherightofthem on May 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM

He has given you all he wants to give you.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I’m guessing you stand ready to take a little more from him, though, right?

Go towel off. Your fear permeates the room.

totherightofthem on May 20, 2013 at 7:28 AM

Me guess, all the evils in the universe are the republicans fault. There can be no government big enough to counter all the ills that republicans do.

racquetballer on May 20, 2013 at 7:53 AM

I didn’t think the WH could do worse than Carney or Rice….until this clown…

easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 8:12 AM

There is an achilles heel with Banghazi.It is where was zero when the terror types attacked.They can’t and won’t answer that one question,they will have to lie.

rodguy911 on May 20, 2013 at 8:14 AM

Release the kracken! Or, at least Obama’s transcripts from Harvard.

racquetballer on May 20, 2013 at 8:50 AM

First, this is to cover the fact two days of emails are still missing THE FIRST TWO DAYS! What is on them? Oh yeah, the really bad stuff.

Second- A sign your administration is in trouble is when it sends out the some intern looking fellow who is back from a college break!

It’s like “Dude, I don’t know what is going on, but these guys from the White House grabbed me on my way to the beach with my board and put this suit on me. They said if I keep repeating the same line over and over, they would take me to Subway afterward for a footlong! I mean who could say no! Knarly!”

Put “Biff” back in the closet and get someone who thinks they have future in politics worth risking to show up.

Right now the equation appears to be: Rats=sinking ship= get the F out!

just saying…

archer52 on May 20, 2013 at 8:54 AM

“The Law is Irrelevant.”

Words mean something!

When miller, head of the IRS, kept being asked over and over ‘don’t you think Congress needed to know what you know – about the scandals – the last time you appeared before us’ he repeated over and over ‘I answered the questions you asked.’ He implied he had no obligation to tell them anything, & it wasn’t his fault they ased the wrong questions. It was technical legalese BS – carefully chosen words to avoid answering their question while insisting to them that his misleading Congress was not wrong because he never technically lied.

When Strong used these 4 words he declared to the world what many of us already knew – the Constitution & U.S. Laws mean NOTHING to this President & his administration! His oath of office meant nothing, his vow to defend & uphold the Constitution & rule of law meant nothing. He declared his war on both of them before he was elected, vowing to fundamentally change the U.S. if elected. By using these 4 words, Strong identified this adminsitration – this President – as an ENEMY OF THE STATE who has intentionally violated the Constitution & law repeatedly…and a declaration that they have no intention of stopping.

easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Back to Bill Clinton, and “is” .

Is it a lie or not.

A lie is a lie.

Is lie.

Is.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM

My job takes me into the homes of anonymous people, and over the past 4+ years I have been amazed to see more than a few who literally had O’bama Shrines not only in their living rooms, but more frequently in their bedrooms. And these were all folks who are white.

Never saw that before, even with JFK or Reagan. To these fools, O’bama is The Pope.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I’ve seen this once before,..

My grandmother was born in the 1890′s, raised two seperate sets of kids, one through the depression, outlived three husbands..

and kept till her dying day an FDR shrine, with portrait, candles, flower vases, little plaques..

I never understood why?.. but as an under 10 child never asked about it.

I can say without reservation, I loved Ronald Maximous Reagan, he was MY preside4nt. I voted for him, served under him as my CIC, and died a little bit inside the day he passed away. I’d lost my father all over again in a way…. but that’s my point, to me he was like a loved family member.

Never, did I have a shrine in my home about him, not a picture on the wall, no candles, no daily prayers for his soul.

Because all to many democrats aren’t looking for a hero.. but a demigod. Someone more than human who reaches them on a level we reserve for God only.. them.. he IS GOD.

I lost an uncle recently, didn’t go to his funeral, was not welcome. we were estranged, because of an argument over Reagan back almost 20 years ago.. He was stunned I was a republican, and he being a WW II vet, informed me, I was unAmerican, and almost a traitor because I wasn’t in the little guy’s FDR party..

It got ugly, and later when I said, let’s put our politics aside, and just be family..

he slammed the door in my face..

This is what we’re dealing with, their party is their church, the president of that party, God..

and apostates are to be shunned..

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM

HotAirLib,

Stand still we are trying to pee in your face and you keep moving and dodgeing and the subject change drill.

Face the pee.

awk

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Me guess, all the evils in the universe are the republicans fault. There can be no government big enough to counter all the ills that republicans do.

racquetballer on May 20, 2013 at 7:53 AM

haha it is always fun to say this to lefties when dealing with them in person – shuts them up every time I’ve done it! :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 9:41 AM

This is an administration in full retreat, and an agenda that is finished.

Progressives that have to resort to intimidation tactics support the contention that they are devoid of any future without the ability to suppress the truth.

itsspideyman on May 20, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I’ve seen this once before,..

My grandmother was born in the 1890′s, raised two seperate sets of kids, one through the depression, outlived three husbands..

and kept till her dying day an FDR shrine, with portrait, candles, flower vases, little plaques..

I never understood why?.. but as an under 10 child never asked about it.

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Living Colour – “Cult Of Personality”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 9:53 AM

HotAirLib,

Stand still we are trying to pee in your face and you keep moving and dodgeing and the subject change drill.

Face the pee.

awk

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM

You’re comments lately have been cracking me up – good job! :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I can say without reservation, I loved Ronald Maximous Reagan, he was MY president. I voted for him, served under him as my CIC, and died a little bit inside the day he passed away. I’d lost my father all over again in a way…. but that’s my point, to me he was like a loved family member.

Same here. To continue your thought, I NEVER thought to put up a shrine to him. I considered (and I’m sure he felt the same way) him my equal, a man I could look in the eye and shake his hand with pride.

But that’s the nature of America, and one of its special properties, the thought that all under the eyes of God are created equal.

itsspideyman on May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Hal from the comments being laughed at, seems clearly in the if a democrat does it, it’s legal camp.. and if they have to break some eggs (citizens lives) so be it… he he he..

nice.. so political persecution is permissible..

as long as a liberal does it..

Clearest confession of fascism yet from it.

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 9:58 AM

No. Because I don’t care what your party thinks about said emails. There is never going to be enough emails for you conspiracy theorists.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 5:42 PM

…as you cite a conspiracy about the Republicans doctoring emails that can be debunked by the shining crystal administration releases the actual emails that shows that the Republicans doctored emails.

It’s funny that nobody on your side felt they had to wear the tinfoil hat for the “vast right-wing conspiracy” during the Clinton administration. Back then “conspiracy” wasn’t the commit-able word that it becomes today through the standard pattern of lib’s changing rules and what is and what isn’t politic.

Axeman on May 20, 2013 at 10:02 AM

itsspideyman on May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Exactly.. you never got the feeling he felt superior to you, that were you to meet in a tavern or park, he’d shake your hand and talk to you, and actually care about your opinion.. on a purely neighborly man to man way.

I cannot see any president since,.. well maybe George Bush,.. to have that quality..

every democrat has the Adlie Stevenson edgey.. “what the hell do you want” attitude towards the little guy. LBJ had an ability to ACT like he cared, but he didn’t..

Obama is the worst of that subspecies..

The born to be King and rule you all mentality.. like it was some great favor you’re allowed to even exist on the same planet.. I knew in my gut, he was toxic, when an aide of his remarked, he was the only president not awed by the Oval Office.. that he put his feet on the desk carved from the timber of the HMS Resolute..

That kind of blind hubris.. entitlement leaves you speechless..

Mr. Reagan never set foot in that office without his suit jacket on, and insisted his staff do the same.. as did both Bush’s.

and Obama puts his feet on the desk.. as if it were carved just for him personally. Unbelievable.

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 10:12 AM

This is what we’re dealing with, their party is their church, the president of that party, God..

and apostates are to be shunned..

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Burt Prelutsky, a former lib/911-conservative, once wrote that he realized that libs don’t like each over that much, either. Their main communal bond is banding against the hated conservative. If you break that bond, you’re nothing to these people. No amount of agreement to lib causes saved Burt or Bernie Goldberg from being pushed further and further to the right.

Axeman on May 20, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The e-mails were doctored but the birth certificate wasn’t.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Bevan on May 20, 2013 at 10:19 AM

This is what we’re dealing with, their party is their church, the president of that party, God..

and apostates are to be shunned..

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM

This sort of idolization reminds me of much communist history I have read & searched over & over again.
The times & events are so eerily similar in many, many ways.
People are afraid of Liberty.
And I admit, being free & being responsible for your own decisions, yourself, & your family & community is hard.
It is exactly why Liberty never really does last in society.
Bcs people are mostly scared of life & they do everything they can to avoid living it free.
Being a slave is much easier.

Badger40 on May 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM

mark81150 on May 20, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Well put, and thank you for your service.

itsspideyman on May 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Badger40 on May 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Agreed Badger. Freedom is not for the faint-hearted. It takes no small amount of courage.

itsspideyman on May 20, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Jonathan Karl has apologized. He understands his reporting was flawed and the result was that he misrepresented the emails. – both in substance and in context.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Jonathan Karl has apologized. He understands his reporting was flawed and the result was that he misrepresented the emails. – both in substance and in context.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Oh so that makes all his other biased reporting OK. I see.
Now, when do we hear OBama’s giant a$$ apology for really fracking this country up?

Badger40 on May 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Jonathan Karl has apologized. He understands his reporting was flawed and the result was that he misrepresented the emails. – both in substance and in context.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM

He apologized for not clearly stating that his source for the email was a note of the email (since the email was not available) and not the email itself. None of the relevant issues his reporting has raised have changed. Karl hasn’t backed off at all of his reporting and it’s statements.

gwelf on May 20, 2013 at 12:36 PM

gwelf on May 20, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Of course, he/she/it could have realized that if it paid attention.
It is so pathetic when these apologists keep doubling down.

Badger40 on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Of course, he/she/it could have realized that if it paid attention.
It is so pathetic when these apologists keep doubling down.

Badger40 on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Their foolish haste to defend their Messiah provides good comedy for us non-Kool Aid drinkers, though. :)

As a reminder, this is Karl’s apology. Reading it, embarrassingly mistaken losers like verbaloser obviously do not understand what “in substance” means…

Jonathan Karl: “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Intellectually dishonest leftards like Shallow HAL and verbaloser are like people who mystifyingly believe that pointing out an opponent’s typo overshadows & invalidates what they are disagreeing with, no matter how factual its content may be…

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 1:03 PM

If my party and people who share my ideology start raving about how they are so proud to be anti America like the tea billies, I say target them too.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM

So your side railing that capitalism is bad, and the military is awful, and we shouldn’t have borders, and the Constitution is outdated and useless isn’t anti-American?

You’re not up on American history are you?

gekkobear on May 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Intellectually dishonest leftards like Shallow HAL and verbaloser are like people who mystifyingly believe that pointing out an opponent’s typo overshadows & invalidates what they are disagreeing with, no matter how factual its content may be…

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Pretty rich that you offer this when you’re coming from a place where the foundation of your accusations is nothing more than hypothetical speculations, suggestions of ‘meanings’, suspicions based based on imagined conversations and scenarios.
The real problem you and others pushing the false Benghazi narrative have to deal with, it that this burst of attention is in fact that…some attention.
And largely the conclusion rational folks reach when in fact seeing all this ‘evidence’, is that there’s nothing to it. They see it for exactly what it is – a political attack machine.
But as we’ve seen this week…you can shift the narrative on a dime. Example would be on the legit IRS issue…we’ve gone from ‘This is an outrage that the President must have known about all along! Don’t believe he was in the dark here!!’ –
to….’It’s an outrage the President didn’t know about this and was in the dark! How could he be so aloof!’.
Ha.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

ROFL@you & your lack of reading comprehension!

Jonathan Karl: “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Listen up, TweezerLips. Think of it this way, HAPOS – eventually, there WILL be another Republican Administration. The law is ALL about prescedent. Now, imagine it the other way round and kindly STFU.

PJ Emeritus on May 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/

HILLARY IS TOTALLY TRUSTWORTHY…RIGHT?!

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

** Eric Holder was also caught hiding files when he worked to get the terrorist group FALN a pardon (which they did not want/did not ask for).

easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

verb. seriously … come on man. do you just not read stuff you cite before doing your victory laps?

rightmind on May 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Get out the ChapStick. Your lips are chapped from kissing @$$

hamradio on May 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

verb[aloser]. seriously … come on man. do you just not read stuff you cite before doing your victory laps?

rightmind on May 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM

You were merely being rhetorical, right? :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Jonathan Karl: “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM

What do you see his ‘story’ to be?

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

ROFL@you & your lack of reading comprehension!

Jonathan Karl: “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I don’t think a lack of reading comprehension was the problem.

I think the troll was simply lying about what Karl said. The trolls here lie like dogs, just like their favorite politicians.

Also, you saved me the trouble of digging up that quote from Karl.

farsighted on May 20, 2013 at 2:27 PM

What do you see his ‘story’ to be?

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

If you want me to consider you more than just a common, everyday, typical partisan hack, go read Karl’s story, give a report proving that you accurately understood it, and define exactly what he meant by “a distraction” from story he claims “still entirely stands.”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM

If you want me to consider you more than just a common, everyday, typical partisan hack, go read Karl’s story, give a report proving that you accurately understood it, and define exactly what he meant by “a distraction” from story he claims “still entirely stands.”

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Sure…we can end this on your cop-out and deflection.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Sure…we can end this on your cop-out and deflection.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Instead of getting off of your lazy butt to demonstrate to me that I am not talking to pure retard a la non-nonpartisan, you chose to personally attack me, showing that you don’t care that I consider you a partisan hack, which just goes to prove that I am 100% justified in calling you, “verbaloser”!

I am done with you for now, little pinata :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Believing this is believing Obama was actually outraged the IRS targeted those tea party fraudulent groups. A targeting strategy i am 100% for.

HotAirLib on May 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Have you heard of a thing called a “Bivens suit”?

You might get familiar with it. Because a lot of people are going to get hit with a lot of these suits very soon.

You think not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is an EP violation. Well, even more than that, is applying IRS rules and regulatory scrutiny to conservative and not liberal groups. There isn’t even a rational basis for doing it.

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I don’t think a lack of reading comprehension was the problem.

I think the troll was simply lying about what Karl said.

farsighted on May 20, 2013 at 2:27 PM

In one sense, you are giving the ever-lazy verbaloser more credit here than I, as lying takes effort. IOW, I don’t believe verbaloser even has the brain energy required to create a lie! :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Sure…we can end this on your cop-out and deflection.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Instead of getting off of your lazy butt to demonstrate to me that I am not talking to pure retard a la non-nonpartisan, you chose to personally attack me, showing that you don’t care that I consider you a partisan hack, which just goes to prove that I am 100% justified in calling you, “verbaloser”!

I am done with you for now, little pinata :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM

You feel ‘personally attacked’?
Zowz.
Um…well, I apologize for…um…attacking you, so…ah…personally.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

For those who didn’t read the OP…

About Karl’s version of the emails…

They were extracted by ABC’s Jon Karl from notes taken by attendees at the original meeting when the White House refused to initially allow anyone to have copies which could have been used for full referencing. ABC went with the notes, being the closest thing anyone had to an official record,

No one in the media had the actual emails. All they had were notes taken by people who were allowed to take a look at the emails for a couple/few hours. Emails only some people were only allowed to review as part of a deal the GOP made with the WH to allow the Brennan nomination to proceed.

And here is the difference between what Karl reported and the actual email. An email only released by the WH after pressured to do so by reports based on notes taken by people who got only a relatively brief glimpse of them.

Here’s the relevant part of the email as quoted by Karl:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

Here’s the relevant sentence from the real email:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

In Clintonian fashion the WH, and its troll corps, would have us believe this makes all of the difference in the world, just like what your definition of “is” is does.

Keep in mind Karl was working from the only source he had, someone else’s notes. And that was because the WH refused to release the emails. He has apologized for not getting the quote exactly right. How could he without access to the original emails?

However, he has not apologized for the content of his report because, after finally getting access to the emails, he thinks his reporting still accurately reflects what was in the emails.

In fact, Karl’s reporting forced the WH to release emails they had refused to release for many months. Apparently that is what it took to get the most transparent WH ever to release what it should have released long ago. Good job Karl.

Now where are the emails from the previous 67 hours?

farsighted on May 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM

You feel ‘personally attacked’?
Zowz.
Um…well, I apologize for…um…attacking you, so…ah…personally.

verbaluce on May 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I didn’t say, “feel”, did I? That is your word, which is completely expected from a dishonest leftard like you.

Instead of spending your time trying to give me a good reason to believe you were worthy of my time, you tried to make the conservation into one about my ‘motives’, which, to your apparent chagrin, does fall under the definition of “personal attack.”

If you don’t agree, that’s ok – you can argue with yourself about it, little pinata! :)

Anti-Control on May 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3